commission meaning a combination of cuts and revenue. during the campaign when you saw the republican candidate and paul ryan talking about the tax breaks and loopholes in the tax code that benefit very wealthy people. they are are still there. through tax reform we can raise more revenue matched by additional cuts to match the sequester issue and the long-term deficit. >> buy the argument? >> the cuts have yet to happen. they are scheduled for the out years. congress says give us the revenue now and we promise, we promise we will get the cuts. that is exactly what the fiscal cliff deal was. they got revenue now. no cuts in there. the same old same old. i tell folks back home all the time, remember, this is promises from politicians. it is not a promise from your parents or your pastor or your priest. it is politicians saying give us some revenue and we promise we will get to the balanced approach later and promise we will cut spending later. mitch mcconnell is exactly

right. they just got revenue. we have to cut spending. we have a $16 trillion debt. the credit card is maxed out. we have to cut spending. he is exactly right. let's focus on the problem which is this government can't control spending. we have to get control of it. >> we spoke at length during the campaign when you were the president's point person on the budget and you repeatedly stated and said it again this morning simpson bowles is is the model and you have to have revenue and spending cuts. >> that's right. >> we got the revenue. we got a tiny tiny spending cut along with the fiscal cliff deal. where are the spending cuts? >> actually the cuts and revenue you we have taken so far are still far short in both categories from simpson bus. boles. >> but the spending cuts are way short. >> that is not the case. simpson bowles said at the starting point we would allow the upper income taxes to go back to clinton era levels. we have just barely gotten to the spending point.

we are a little short. on top of that they raised over a trillion dollars in revenue combined with cuts. yes woo have to do more cuts and the president has been clear and put on the table $1.2 trillion in cuts proposal combined with $1.2 trillion in revenue. the only reason we weren't able to go forward with that is you had house republicans deciding not to follow speaker boehner in that balanced approach and frankly that is the danger going forward. the danger going forward is that house republicans will continue to refuse to take a balanced approach and that is going to dead lock the entire process. >> another danger going forward according to many people is how far you push the spending dehe bait into the debt ceiling limit and whether you go past it. here is what the president said about that on tuesday. let's list. >> if congress refuses to give the united states government the ability to pay these bills on time, the consequences for the entire global economy would be catastrophic. far worse than the impact of a fiscal cliff. >> congressman jordan back in

2011 when we had the debate you advocated going past the debt ceiling deadline saying it wouldn't be such a bad thing. would you advocate that again this year? >> i advocated a solution and not a deal. it is no wonder the president doesn't want to debate this. if i had prosided over the four annual highest deficits in american history, $5 trillion increase in the national debt i probably wouldn't want to talk about the issue either. let's look at the facts. since the debt ceiling agreement passed 16 months ago the day after it passed we got a downgrade from s&p. a week after the market dropped 1300 points. the supercommittee which chris and so many members voted for fell apart like we all thought it would and the only scheduled cuts that were supposed to take place we just suspended them five days ago in the fiscal cliff deal. we have yet to cut one dime from the last debt ceiling agreement and now here it is time to do it again. we got to stop the madness. this is the 18-year-old kid on the credit card and they maxed out the credit card.

instead of cutting it up and putting them on a budget barack obama says give us a new credit card and by the way, harry reid you don't have to pass a budget in three years. this is crazy. >> would you support this year letting the debt ceiling deadline last? >> what i won't support is not dealing with the problem. americans sent us here to deal with the problem. the way this town works this fiscal cliff deal the only winners in the fiscal cliff deal were washington. they got more money. the folks i represent in the fourth district of ohio they lost revenue, small business owners had money taken from them. washington always wins and the politicians and consultants and folks here always win. 7 of the 10 wealthiest counties in the country are in the d.c. area. mr. van hollen represents one of those. this area regular americans lose and it is about time we said stop this madness and cut up the credit cards and we want a solution not another washington deal which helps d.c. >> a couple of joints, john. first of all, the sequester was not kicked down the road. it was replaced for two

months -- >> replaced means postponed which is what washington is great at doing. >> got to get your facts straight. >> i got them straight. >> we had $24 billion in deficit reduction. not nearly enough but the idea is the model going forward is to continue to do a balanced approach of cuts and revenue. number two what america got is we didn't go over the fiscal cliff. i know you voted not to go over the fiscal cliff. >> i voted not to raise taxes on any one. you could have is stopped every single person from having their taxes go up. you wanted additional revenue. washington won again. >> we decided very high income earners need to contribute more to reduce the deficit. otherwise folks on medicaid and medicare would get walloped. i know you want to wallop them to protect the millionaires. >> we don't. we want to fix the problem. >> going forward on the debt ceiling, newt gingrich had it right on friday when said it was a dead loser for

republicans to threaten to thank tank the united states economy by refusing to pay our own bills. this is not about future payments. this is about paying bills already due and owing. like we get up one morning and say we are not going to pay our mortgage. that is reckless and irresponse irresponsible. kind of the madman theory to negotiations. give us what we want is what republicans say or we will tank the united states economy. that is reckless and irresponsible and we won't do it. >> what it reckless is not addressing the problem and that is what we want to do. >> let's look at the way this may unfold. the president say if this is tied to the debt ceiling it is not a discussion i'm going to have. speaker boehner said we talked about raising the debt ceiling and we want an equal or greater offset in taxes or other cuts. equal or greater offset rather in spending cuts. mitch mcconnell.

let's listen to what he said. >> now, that he has the tax rates he wants his calls for balance means he needs to join us in the effort to achieve meaningful spending reform. the president may not want to have this debate but it is the one he is going have because the country needs it. >> does the country need this debate? two years ago we went from 14 to $16 trillion debt ceiling and everybody said how horrible that was. now, we are talking about going from 16 to 18 trillion and that only takes us through 2014 at which point we will be talking about going to $20 trillion. a lot of people are rightly asking i think when does this stop. >> when does the madness stop. the country not only needs the debate. we need to solve the problem. what you will see from the house is we will put forward a plan that says if you want to increase the borrowing authority of this country here is a mean you of options where you can reduce spending of an equal or greater amount. you tell us, mr. president. you have been afraid to but together a budget. harry reid hasn't touched the

budget in three years. tell us where to reduce spending because that has to happen if we solve this problem. that is the adult responsible thing to do and frankly what the american people are looking for us to do. let's do it for a change instead of saying give us more revenue and we promise we will cut spending later. give us more borrowing authority. we promise we will cut. this is the looc lucy and chare brown and the football and we are not going to kick it this time. you always vie screw it up. let's solve about problem and put this country on the path to get a balance to have a growing economy and see the things that need to happen. >> do the president's feet need to be held to the fire here on spending? >> the president has put together a plan for another 1.2 trillion, north dakota, spending cuts. they walked afrom trace gallagher prosal why because jim and his colleagues didn't want to ask people who make over a million dollars a year to pay a little bit more. the president's budget contains

significant spending cuts. >> tell me tax increases that ever created a single job? has a tax increase created one single job? does that create jobs? >> if we don't get the deficit under control it will hurt our long-term economic growth. >> and if we don't have a growing economy you are not going to -- [ overlapping speakers ] >> let me see if there is one point. >> if you go over the fiscal cliff that will hurt the economy. >> let me see if there is one point you can agree on here. do we need to do something to get deficits and debt under control. >> yes. >> yes. >> you need to cut spending. >> and take the balanced approach. do you support the simpson boles frame work. >> you you just got spending. >> you just got the tax revenue you wanted which is going to hurt economic growth. >> we did $1.5 trillion in it cuts last year. we need to do more cuts. >> noon of those have kicked? >> we capped spending going forward. >> going forward. nothing has happened yet. >> you heard his answer he

wants to take half of the simpson recommendations and just the cart. >> you got the spending part of that. >> you got part of the spending cut. >> at least you got part of the tax revenue. >> and part of the spending. $1.5 trillion in spending cuts last year. >> you didn't get any spending cuts. >> that is not true. we adopted many of the proposals. >> if there discussion is any indication of how the 8 weeks will go -- >> let me shift gears for a second here. gun control is big issue in the next year. ten bills introduced in the house on thursday on gun control. karen mccarthy of new york introduced legislation limiting the magazines to ten rounds. would anything in any one of those have prevented that shooting? >> well, my view is we need to take a comprehensive approach to gun safety issues. that means looking at school

security. means looking at mental health situation and look at sensible gun control issues. >> why isn't congress talking about that? >> we. having a universal background check so people who have criminal records on who have been found to be adding. how would that have stopped adam lanza from stealing his mother's gun? >> the argument is always because it doesn't solve everything we he shouldn't do anything. i don't subscribe to that. we need a comprehensive approach and look at all of the different elements here. just because a particular effort won't prevent something in one particular incident doesn't mean you shouldn't do anything that won't help in other incidents. right now you can be on the terrorist watch list and be presidential hopefuls he vented from boarding an airplane but you can go down the street and buy a semi automatic weapon. >> adam lanza wasn't on anybody's radar screen. how does gun control solve that

problem? >> i don't think it does. every american's heart was broken when they saw what happened there in connecticut. more restrictions on law abiding citizens is not going to preprevent these kind of panel did is. the second amendment is about freedom. if there is ways outside of this area we can help address the situation fine. we have to remember it is about predom. freedom. and frankly you have to remember that bad guys aren't stupid. they will figure out a way -- if they are intent on doing something bad they will get a weapon and find out a way to use it. >> charles krauthammer said it is multifactorial. guns and mental health and society. he was a psychiatrist and back in his time had a far easier time committing someone who was mentally ill. >> certainly you don't want someone with a mental illness getting a firearm. what i don't want to do is

prevent law abiding citizens from their second amendment rights. >> this is about common sense provisions. we have background check but there are big loopholes. do you want to get rid of the criminal background checks? >> concealed care permit which required a background check and take a training course before a law abiding citizen. >> let's join each other in making sure that we get rid of the loophole and everybody who purchases a gun has to have a universal background check. would you support that? >> for concealed carry. >> before you can guy a semi automatic weapon. >> the second amendment is about freedom and the first amendment and fourth amendment. >> so if you have broken the law and committeted a violent t you should be able to buy a semi ought mat ec automatic we. >> if this discussion is any indication of what lies ahead.

>> it will be a problem. >> all right. >> thank you, john. >> and we'll leave it there. thanks for joining us this morning. we appreciate it. up next, senator ted cruz, a no nonsnsnsnsnsnsns

he have joined the club just four months ago but no mistaking there is a texan in the senate. the tea party representative is ready to make his mark in a town that he has been none too shy to criticize. joining me now to talk about the future of his party, welcome been senator ted cruz. >> glad to be here. >> one of the first orders of business is nominees for the second term cabinet.

among them expected to be former nebraska senator chuck hagel. it is expected president will are make that announcement in the next couple of days. how will vow jet on hagel? >> it he is nominated it is difficult to imagine a circumstance in which i could support his nomination. the president seems bound and determined to proceed down this path despite the fact that hagel's record is very troubling on the nation of israel. he has not been a friend to israel and in my view the united states should stand unshakeably with the nation of israel and he has consistently advocated weakness with respect to our enemies. with respect to the nation of iran he has opposed sanctions over and over again and the job of the secretary of defense is to b be a serious credible strength and deterrent and unfortunately i think weakness in a secretary of defense invites conflict because bullies don't respect weakness. the problem withb lem with

hagel on the issue of israel? >> he has rehe peteedly placed all of the blame on israel in dispute after dispute and dispute and in fact publicly said u.s. policy is dependent on what he calls the israel lobby which is a pejorative term that i think does not reflect the realities of the strong u.s. national security interest in maintaining that alliance. >> that statement that he made was to aaron david miller a former u.s. diplomat. i was going to save this for the panel but maybe we could bring it up now. here is what he said regarding i israel and it was quoted in his new book the much too promisedland. he said people on capitol hill are afraid of the israel lobby and he says well, i'm a u.s. senator. here we go. the jewish lobby intimidates a lot of people up here. i'm a united states stor senate not an israeli senator.

david miller said what he was talking about there wasn't as dire as many people are making it out to o be. he is opposed to some israeli policies but certainly not andty israeli. this is the guy who it said it to. do you buy mr. miller's argument? >> i don't know. i'm not going to speak to mr. hagel's heart. what i am concerned about is his record and his past policy positions and he previously expressed that with respect to iran, with respect to israel that he doesn't want criticism from other nations of the world. you know, that is not the job of the defense secretary. he is not being nominated to be secretary of state. you you want to talk about the most effective diplomacy this nation has seen in modern times? ronald reagan standing up and winning the cold war without firing a shot. and that was done with strength. if you are an irania mullah and

looking at chuck hagel who thinks sanctions are to harsh you have to be laughing at the prospects of anything harsher than sanctions. >> all of that said, do you think he will be confirmed? >> i don't know. i do think it is interesting that the president seems hell bent on nominating him despite the fact that a number of prominent republicans have criticized him and the democratic senators have been surprisingly silent on it. i think this is a president right now, who has drunk the tea. on election he is feeling good about himself and feeling like there can be no opposition to his position and so it doesn't seem, he doesn't seem terribly concerned there is not a lot of concern for chuck hagel. >> another nomination will be for treasury secretary as well. perhaps jack lu who is currently the chief of staff at white house is the leading candidate. how would you vote on lu? >> i would have to look at his record and listen to what he has to say. i will tell you my view on any

treasury secretary would be that i would want to hear some real proposals for growth. and this whole debate about the fiscal cliff we have been talking about taxes and talking about spending. noticeably absent from the equation has been growth. and the biggest economic problem of the last four years has been the dismal economic growth. under barack obama our economy has grown 1.5% a year for four years. less than half the historical -- >> this gets no the whole idea of retooling the republican party under the heading of opportunity conservativism which i would like to get into in just a second. do you share the distaste of jack lu that republican colleagues have over the way that he conducted himself during the debt ceiling debate of 2011? a lot of people say he was arrogant and impossible to work with, rigid. >> i wasn't up here during that debate so he wasn't arrogant to me so i have not dealt with the man. i will keep an open mind.

with any treasury secretary nominee my view is going to be looking to the substance and this is not supposed to be a popularity contest. this is about fixing the problems that are affecting millions of americans. you know, people all over this country, i don't think they are interested in the political squabbles on the capitol. they are interested in getting the economy going and getting jobs back and that is where the focus needs to be. >> a debt ceiling debate coming up again. you you probably heard of mitch mcconnell saying the revenue piece is done, no new taxes. are you going to hold to that line that the president is not going to get any more revenue and the only thing that the president has to deal with here is spending cuts? >> i will suggest a slight tweak. i'm happy for there to be lots of new revenue. i'm 235 not happenmy for new you taxes. the best avenue for new revenue is economic growth. if the economy is sputtering along at 1.5% or 2% gdp growth, tax revenues plummet.

people are out of jobs since world war ii the average 3.2%. in ronald reagan we grew 7.2%. if we get up to 3.5% that will be dramatically more revenue but the way is through progrowth policies not new and additional taxes. >> are you willing to risk default on the debt by taking the debt ceiling battle right to the limit? >> no and let me be clear about this. i do not support default on the debt. we should never default on the debt and the only players in washington who are are threatening to default on the debt are president barack obama and harry reid. this is an issue and earlier in the show you played the president threatening default. in any given month federal tax revenues are approximately $200 billion a month. interest on the debt is $30 billion to $40 billion a month. there is plenty of revenue to service the debt and any

responsible president would have stood at that podium and said under any circumstances whatever happens with the debt ceiling we will always pay our debt. we will never default on the debt and the reason the president isn't doing that s he is trying to scare people. he is trying to raise this specter of a financial apocalypse. >> i want to get into a couple of other issues quickly because we are running short on time despite the time that we have a lot of time on the program. gun control. ten bills introduced in the house of representatives regarding gun control. joe biden leading a study group at the white house. you are a fierce defender of second amendment rights. you were in 2010 given the nra freedom fund award. is there any new gun control that you would accept? >> the reason we're discussing this is because of the tragedy in newtown and every parent. my wife and i, we have two little girls age four and age two. every parent was horrified at

what happened throw the children and six adults senselessly murdered takes your breath away. within minutes we saw politicians run out and try to exploit this tragedy and push their political agenda of gun control. i do not support their gun control agenda for two reasons. number one, it is unconstitutional. >> is there anything you would accept? >> are there things we could do? sure. we could improve the quality of the federal database. right now a lot of states and local jurisdictions are not reporting criminal convictions and not reporting mental health barriers to ownership and so the federal database is not nearly as good as it should be. that would be a common sense improvement. that is not what is being proposed. senator dianne feinstein's bill would create a national gun registry. i don't think the federal government has any business having a list of law abiding

citizens who choose to their right to bear arms. >> some people are saying changing demographics in the country, we have to be more moderate. you wrote in an op ed piece you need to retrench conservative values and develop opportunity conservativism to try to help people live the american dream. is that really the right way to go when you look at changing demographics in the country? >> i think it is exactly the right way to go. the reason i'm conservative is because conservative policies work and they improve opportunities. they are the avenue for climbing the economic dream and what i have been talking about for many years is opportunity conservativism that every policy should focus like a laser on easing the means of as sent up the economic ladder. that we should be championing the 47% to take that now you infamous comment.

americans don't want to be dependent on government. dependency saps the spirit. too doesn't work. americans want to stand on their own two feet and the best way to do that is have policies that allow entrepreneurs and small businesses to live and create jobs and advance the american dream. >> we don't have time to play the actual sound but some politicians get elected promising to go up to capitol hill and cut spending and live conservative values and then turn into spineless jelly fish. what is to prevent you from becoming a spineless jelly fish here in the climate of washington? >> the great thing about the election we just went through is that we saw hundreds of thousands of grass roots activists across texas and across the nation stand up against a mountain of money and mountains of attacks. we weren't supposed to win this race. i feel like i'm coming into office surrounded by and lifted up by those grass roots conservatives who i am happy to stand with over and over again. >> as mitch mcconnell proved

the other day governing requires compromise particularly in the minority in the senate and a democratic president reelect the for another four years. it is one thing to criticize washington when you are a candidate but when you get here you have to govern. how do you do that? >> i think the fiscal cliff deal was a lousy deal but i think moving forward with the debt ceiling i think those who believe in limited spending and solving the debt and not bankrupting our kids have the advantage in the negotiation on the debt ceiling. if we can stand strong and insist on number one structural reforms to fix the problem and number two, progrowth policies to grow the economy and get jobs back and get people back to work i think we with win that debate and win that argument. i don't think what washington needs is more compromise. i think washington needs more common sense and more principle. >> it is good to get to know you. thanks so much for dropping by and good luck. >> thank you for having me. >> appreciate it. >> up next, a new year, a new congress.

we'll ask our political panel if the political well is still poison.

our economy captain afford more protracted showdowns or manufactured crises along the way. >> the american dream is in peril so long as its name sake is weighed down by this anchor

of debt. break its hold and we begin to set our economy free. >> the president and the speaker of the house on the perils and possibilities of the tough fiscal battles that yet lie ahead. time for our sunday panel. brit hume, nina easton and bill kristol. >> if the discussion that we saw this morning as any indication there is little tox existences bipartisanship alive in the town. how do you think that will play out? >> a continuation of what the president claims he doesn't want which s looking over cliffs. when you look at this deal they came up with this week, and which the president took the lead on, what does it do for economic growth? not a lot. the increase in the payroll tax everybody seeing a smaller pay check this month, that is going to put a damper on the economy. does it do anything to take

uncertainty out of the economy and help businesses start investing and adding jobs again? no. what it does is creates more uncertainty. we have the fight over the debt ceiling looming out there. a fight over the spending cuts still looming out there. we have entitlement reform hopefully looming out there but we haven't seen much leadership on that. all this did is show the president is extremely adept at exploiting weaknesses and divisions in the republican party. that is about it. >> when you look at potential effects of going past the debt ceiling and defaulting on the loans it is the difference of peering over the edge of the grand canyon versus peering over the edge of your bed with the fiscal cliff deal. >> senator cruz is right. there is no danger of default on our debt. >> despite all of the warnings. >> we hit the debt ceiling we can't borrow any more. tax receipts continue to flow and cover about 60% of the

federal spending. debt service is 6 or 7%. so there would be plenty of money as senator cruz pointed out to cover the debt service. what you will hear, john, in the weeks ahead is that we will be defaulting on our obligations. that is not reference to the kind of defaults you had on the federal debt. that means you couldn't pay for federal spending. we need to be careful about the use of the term default because it really is scare talk. not to say it would be a desirable outcome and if the republicans want to try to extract real spending cuts as a price for raising the debt ceiling they will have to be pretty tough about it because they will be accused of shutting the government down and might shut down in part. >> and the president as we were discussing in the preliminary conversation the president gets to decide what is shut down. >> one example would be suppose suddenly you can't finance 40% of government spending so the

president and his treasury secretary decides one of the things to shut are the meat and poultry inspections done by the usda. that shuts the meat and poultry industry down in this country overnight and affects a lot of red states and a lot of red state members. this will be very he tough and bloody and ugly and i'm not sure -- i think a lot of republicans have to recognize if you control one house of the congress you can't really wag the dog from that position. you can do some things. what they need to do is win some elections. >> bill, who has the leverage here? >> the reelected president whose party controls one of the two houses of congress has more leverage. he won on taxes and got most of that he campaigned for in terms of tax increases on the wealthy. i always thought that would happen. he can say he wants to raise taxes more on the wealthy and curbing deductions. and obama this is amazing

giving way on the notion that taxes have to go up on the middle class. this is it. ultimately it is bad for liberals who want to expand the welfare state. they said the current level of taxation for everyone below $400,000 is appropriate. they can't raise that now over the next two or four years. they can try to run trillion dollars deficits over the next years and hope the fed can keep financing them that was a hidden victory in the fiscal cliff deal. going forward republicans need to think hard about what they want to ask for on the debt deal negotiations and it shouldn't just be spending cuts. ask for progrowth when h measu. we are not going to have bliss tax reform in the next two months or next two years. what could republicans ask for that would be good for the country. progrowth regulatory relief. delaying ob care for year. proenergy policies. there is practical things they could try to ask for that would have some democratic support that they giving the post the

ability to issue more bonds, a reasonable deal. >> the one thing that hasn't been talked about at all in here except that it didn't show up in the fiscal cliff deal is what are we doing to create jobs in this country. >> as nina mentioned the end of the cut in payroll taxes which is now being called an increase, the restoration of the old rate is probably contractary for the economy but in my view probably necessary. it had p to be reinstated at se point. although it was treated as a concession it is something private ally they actually were willing to accept all along. a little bit of contraction generally built into the fiscal cliff deal. you know, the big variable in what is about to happen in the next few months is the republican position. what is it going to be? nina is also exactly right the president has become very adept and actually very enthusiastic about exploiting their

differences. in that context it is amazing to me how the republicans continue to have so many differences. before we can have any intelligent discussion they have got to get in a room if they can and figure out what it is they want. and then stick to it. i happen to be skeptical about all that. >> the issue right now is spending. purely spending. >> they have honest differences on some policies and i respect those differences. everyone is taking for granted the president of the united states reelected, no electoral pressures on him. it is fun for us to talk about. about l. it matter two years from now? >> that is what the president thinks his job is. in. >> you may not like that but that is what is happening. >> but it is did. >> call it anything you want. you can't act as if it is not happening. >> you think it is a great

political victory for democrats two years out that john boehner is having squabbles in his caucus now? >> the aim of the president if you listen to charles krauthammer, the aim is to neuter and divide the republican congress so he has a minority and majority. >> that is exactly what he is doing. the one measure that we haven't talked about that has support on both sides and within the republican ranks is the corporal tax reform and plug loopholes and add jobs to the economy and that is not being talked about. >> brits? >> brit? >> that is a good point. let's be clear going forward. he successfully exploited the differences over taxes in the republican ranks on this round. going forward the republicans of all stripes will resist any tax increases. republicans of all stripes particularly the house republicans which passed the two ryan budgets which have serious reforms and cuts in them will unite on that. so what will happen is they

will pass a bill that raises the debt ceiling but with a price of major cuts. that will go to the senate. and then we will see what happens. now, in the end, of course, the debt ceiling is going to have to be raised but i think the republicans will be far more united this time around than the last time around. >> i wanted to talk about gun control but we will kick that to the next battle. we we return, battle lines drawn over the new defense secretary as the president makes his cabinet for a second term. and gun control. should armed guards be in school. wait until you see the results of a new poll. you will be very surprised. we'll be right b b b

i served with chuck hagel. i know him. he is a patriot.

somebody who has done extraordinary work both in the united states senate. somebody who served this country with valor in vietnam. >> i can tell you there would be very little republican support for his nomination. at the end of the day there willle be very few votes. >> praise from president obama and deep concern from senator lindsey graham over the man likely to be topped for the top job at the pentagon. the announcement expected to be made in the last couple of days. reports the president has set isled on chuck hagel. why to you think he picked him given the republican opposition and some from the left flank as well? >> the only thing i can think of is that he believes hagel is as a kind of a maverick would not drink the kool-aid as the white house may see it on pentagon military spending and so on. this he would be a counter force over there and not an advocate for the armed forces in the way that even leon panetta has become. the warnings that we are hearing for example about the effect of the sequester so

called on the pentagon the dire warnings have come from panetta not from the white house. the president isn't going around warning about that. leon panetta is. i think that is the reason. are other evacuees, i otherwisr course. really not a particularly distinguished record in the senate or anywhere else. i'm not suggesting he didn't fight valiantly when was himself a soldier, i'm not suggesting that. an odd guy. there is this tinge of suspicion about his views on israel which politically is very dangerous and problematic. so that is the only thing i can think of. >> bill you wrote in the weekly standard there is no case for hagel. elimb nateliminate that. >> is he one of the most distinguished senators on foreign policy or defense policy? not at all. is there any hagel legislation? no. has he written anything

memorable said anything memorable? run anything big like the pentagon? no. it is a mystery. there are better qualified former legislators and qualified people in his own administration who served him well and have bipartpartisan support. all serving or recently is served in the pentagon. people who served in the clinton pentagon who are very well thought of and again on a bipartisan basis. i really don't know why the president wants him except i think maybe he likes the fact that chuck hagel has complained about the power of the jewish lobby and was one of the few senators to vote against the iran sanctions the policy the president now claims as his own and refused to vote to designate the iranian guard a terrorist group. >> maybe he likes the idea of one on one negotiations over the nuclear program. he also said this in an interview with vietnam magazine, i'm not a passivist.

i believe in using force but only after a careful decision-making process. i will do everything i can to avoid needless senseless war. is that an unreasonable position for a secretary of defense to have? >> i think it is in line with where we see the president going in terms of using he doesn't want to put troops on the ground any more. he made that clear. he wants to the rely more on unmanned drones for example in afghanistan and so on and fight terrorism that way. i think brit is right and particularly that he is in line with the president on a lot of these issues. and particularly if you go forward and you look at the kind of spending cuts that have to come down in the pentagon. interesting, too, by nominating hagel he will be overlooking a chance to nominate the first woman secretary of defense who actually does have a lot of support in conservative ranks. >> and a lot of experience in the building. >> and a lot of experience in the building. >> one statement that hagel make back in 2007 that really upset republicans is over the iraq war. he initially supported it and

then turned around on that. he said people say we are not fighting for oil, of course, we are. we talk about america's national interest. what the hell do they think we are are talking about? we are not there for figures. for some people about was refreshing candor. for others, why would you want somebody as secretary of defense who said that? >> the other set of words he wished he could take back was the full throated denounceiation of the surge in iraq. for somebody who voted for the war and denounced the surge as the worst mistake for vietnam were words not particularly well chosen. i agree with bill that given all of the bag and that chuck hagel brings whether you approve of him or not, the best explanation for it is what the president himself said right at the beginning of the clip he ran. i like chuck hagel. they served together in the senate and sort of bonded over the iraq issue and opposition to. >> it. traveled to iraq together and seem to trust each other and i

think he just lives the guy. in addition it is true he has been a critic of what he calls bloat at the pentagon and that is the way the spending thing is going to trend. and finally, at least nominally he is a republican and that purchase a little bipartisan machine. >> nominally is right. >> if harry reid doesn't change the filibuster rule will it go through? >> i think they will take a close look at this and most republicans right the now, would be inclined to oppose chuck hagel. there are democratic senators, senator menendez of new jersey and new york who have fought hard for tough iran sanctions which chuck hagel doesn't believe in. isn't this going to be one of the main priorities of the next secretary of defense? >> all other things being equal if the president really wants him he could probably have him except for the possibility in the course of the confirmation hearings hagel steps all over h himself which could happen and the atmosphere changes and he

becomes highly controversial suspect in the country and that would liberate democrats of the kind that bill described to vote no which can happen. >> so tough sledding ahead for chuck haiged and tough sledding for jack lu if he is nominated to replace tim geithner. i want to get into the gun control. the results of the rasmussen poll, 51% of americans now support stricter gun laws. when asked would posting an armed guard in every school makes schools more safe, 48% said yes and 53% said they would feel safer with an armed guard at school versus no adults with guns. castigatederre was cassty for suggesting that. >> the american people are quite smart in that poll.

wayne la pierre was saying armed guards instead of controls on guns. the american people are more supportive of gun control. you know, if you go back and you look at studies and you impact of gun control. there aren't a lot that show that it works in it terms of celling violence. there is one case where it did work and that is australia where are there was a mass shooting in the '90s. 35 tourists were killed and they put in an assault weapons ban that was much stricter than it was here and did a buyback program. politically i agree it would be tough sledding here but at least get a lot of those guns that put multiple bullet holes in the children at newtown out of the system. >> that is probably true. the problem is that none of the when he sures being talked about or could gather any serious support would go as far as australia went and when you begin to do that -- >> nobody is talking about confiscation and buyback. >> buyback i suppose is possible. i think it would be hard to

pass that. and that is dianne feinstein for example has a measure to ban assault weapons. similar to the measure that was in effect for ten years with no appreciable effect on gun violence. i think that nothing that is being talked about seriously or is likely to pass would make a difference. that is the problem. >> the australia law there were 13 mass murders before that law and none in the decade after. >> 60 seconds left. everybody goes after guns when a shooting like this happens but as charles krauthammer pointed out, you have to address mental health and the ability to commit people and violent movies and i have yes games. why does congress always take aim at guns? >> the murders are committed by guns by guns or people with them. >> you can't blame people who say can't we do something about guns. most of the gun control efforts are going to be in vain and we are kidding ourselves. you can throw around the core

relations. in the years before schools became gun free zones there were almost no mass murders in schools. since then, 22 since 1990. that doesn't prove that you should not make schools gun free zones either. suggest that the core relations don't prove what they are. >> we will pick up charles' thoughts in the panel plus section coming up. don't forget to check out panel plus where the group picks up with the discussion on fox news .com. we will post the video before noon eastern time and make sure to follow us on twitter @ "fox news sunday." coming up the people most upset by the down to the wire fiscal cliff negotiations.

for the past few weeks the term fiscal cliff has made its way into the american lexicon. more and more americans grew

upset in how congress was handling their money. but friends at tonight show made a point who should really be upset. >> americans from all sides seem to be upset about this fiscal cliff deal. imagine the chinese feel, it's their money. what do we care. >> that is it for us today. have a great week. be sure to watch when kris wallace returns on the next fox news sunday. that's the news for today. huckabee is next. tonight on huckabee the president and democrats got their way and raised taxes but did they give republic upper hand on the next fiscal fight. gearing up for the debt ceiling

battle. >> and balanced plan that would cut spending in a responsible way. it always asks the wealthiest americans to pay a little more. and above all, protects our middle class and everyone striving to get into the middle class. >> he promise add fair chance for the milling class, but under the new deal middle class workers will take a bigger percentage hit on their paycheck. charlie gasparino on the impact the fiscal cliff deal will have on every american. plus, he was 11 years old and hungry when he asked her for money on the street. she didn't give him money but something much more valuable that has lasted more than 25 years. ladies and gentlemen, governor mike huckabee. [applause] >> thank you very much. a great audience for this new year. and happy new year to you. welcome to huckabee from the fox news studios in new york city. well, it is hard for me to come up with a proper superlative to

express the disgust i got with president obama and the congress. the gamesmanship and stagecraft that they substituted for statesmanship by rushing through a last-minute piece of legislation is going to cause about 80% of americans to pay more taxes. and it does absolutely nothing to deal with the real problem of run away spending. of course, since incumbents were sent back at a 94% rate in the past election, voters have to accept their responsibility in this disaster of a government. for those who actually believed president obama's promise that if your income was under $250,000, you wouldn't pay one more dime in taxes. then you probably feel sucker punched because you are going to pay an average of about $1,600 more because of the payroll tax increase. now since the person that you probably work for is going to pay that, plus an additional 4.9% tax, i wouldn't count